[speechlesstx]

SCOTUS has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, namely Sec. 4 - the preclearance section.

Washington (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating the key enforcement provision that applies to all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination.

The case involved Section 5, which gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered areas -- which include all or parts of 15 states -- must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.

After the provision was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, counties in Alabama and North Carolina filed suit, saying the monitoring was burdensome and unwarranted.
Voices from the voting war

Civil rights groups say Section 5 has proved to be an important tool in protecting minority voters from local governments that would set unfair, shifting barriers to the polls. If it is ruled unconstitutional, they warn, the very power and effect of the entire Voting Rights Act would crumble.

But opponents of the provision counter that it should not be enforced in areas where it can be argued that racial discrimination no longer exists.

It's about time we start recognizing the strides made in race relations instead of perpetuating the problem. Go ahead lefties, whine away.

[excon]

It's about time we start recognizing the strides made in race relations.

Hello:

We WERE making strides... So, why take away what was CAUSING us to make those strides?

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello:

We WERE making strides... So, why take away what was CAUSING us to make those strides?

Excon

I'll give you their reasoning, but for me it takes away a tool your side uses to perpetuate the problem.

(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5's restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4's coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 13–17.

What, you want to keep us in the stone(d) age?

[talaniman]

We won't whine, but we will be watching your strides in race relations without regulations. If long lines and unfairly drawn districts is a result, then rest assured their will be actions.

[speechlesstx]

We won't whine, but we will be watching your strides in race relations without regulations. If long lines and unfairly drawn districts is a result, then rest assured their will be actions.

You say that as if Dems don't gerrymander and discriminate.

[talaniman]

Then we both have to stop the practice.

[speechlesstx]

Then we both have to stop the practice.

At least you acknowledge it isn't just us.

[speechlesstx]

The left isn't taking this well as expected. I thought they loved progress.

[talaniman]

Some do not trust the motives of the right.

[tomder55]

I support the decision . I'll comment in more detail when I read the opinion.

[speechlesstx]

Some do not trust the motives of the right.

I believe that works both ways as well. And the thing is, blacks have more to fear from your side than ours... unless they just like being used as tools and selling their souls to the devil.

[tomder55]

Initial observation is that this is not the slam dunk either side is making it out to be. It opens the door for Congress to make new preclearance legislation that complies better with Sec 5 . Of the Voting Rights Act. However ,the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required . The way I read it ,preclearance has to be updated to recognize the progress made since the Voting Rights Act was adopted .

To me ;the key sentence in the Roberts decision is this :

Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest andmost delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J. concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf
As I recall ;2009 both houses of Congress was majority Dem . They could've easily acted to correct the concerns of SCOTUS about Sec 4 . But they were too busy shoving Obamacare down our throats to deal with an outdated clause of a law from 1965.
Now if Congress wants preclearance ;they will act to update the Voting Rights Act ;instead of the pattern of re-authorization without any thought.

[talaniman]

LOL, and you really think blacks are not smart enough to see where their own interest lies? Or any other minority group for that matter?

That's the problem here and has always been. You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them. That would lead to others thinking you know what's best for them without asking what they want.

That's like saying everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy. And you don't have to listen.

[talaniman]

intial observation is that this is not the slam dunk either side is making it out to be. It opens the door for congress to make new preclearance legislation that complies better with sec 5 . Of the voting rights act. However ,the court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required . The way i read it ,preclearance has to be updated to recognize the progress made since the voting rights act was adopted .

To me ;the key sentence in the roberts decision is this :

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf
as i recall ;2009 both houses of congress was majority dem . They could've easily acted to correct the concerns of scotus about sec 4 . But they were too busy shoving obamacare down our throats to deal with an outdated clause of a law from 1965.
Now if congress wants preclearance ;they will act to update the voting rights act ;instead of the pattern of re-authorization without any thought.

Exactly!! Personally the law could be expanded as well as updated.

[tomder55]

You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them.

Funny ;that is exactly the problem our nanny state has .it presumes to know what's best for us.

[speechlesstx]

That's the problem here and has always been. You just cannot assume you know what others want, or what's best for them. That would lead to others thinking you know what's best for them without asking what they want.

That's like saying everyone who disagrees with you is a dummy. And you don't have to listen.

You just diagnosed the left's problem in a nutshell. You didn't build that, you need us Julia, your kids don't belong to you, don't like Obamacare, we're ramming it through anyway, you don't need jobs you need gun control, shamnesty and clamping down on carbon emissions, saving you from Big Gulps, baby formula and on and on and on...

[NeedKarma]

You just diagnosed the left's problem in a nutshell. You didn't build that, you need us Julia, your kids don't belong to you, don't like Obamacare, we're ramming it through anyway, you don't need jobs you need gun control, shamnesty and clamping down on carbon emissions, saving you from Big Gulps, baby formula and on and on and on...

What's the right doing?

[talaniman]

You can make the argument that most plans while having good intentions, have real life consequences and creates some problems that need further tweaking, and addressing. Congress has shown little ability to do either of these things in adjusting to the reality of real people.

Like taking into account a recession throwing tens of millions into utter chaos, and not expecting them to need a safety net. Or thinking someone lazy for using a safety net, when they are competing with many others to be secure with study income.

Or changing a 20 year career and life for minimum wage in less than a year. You cannot ignore the storm and expect everybody to be just fine in its aftermath. You also have to consider that for every victim of the recession, there are KIDS involved and not to err in their behalf when enacting, or enforcing any law is unacceptable.

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

[tomder55]

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

you must be speaking to someone else. You know my view of how the markets should work has nothing to do with the corporations that have grown in size and scope specifically because they are the cronies of the "ruling class" . What you fail to realize is that is the inevidible outcome of policies you support.

As for the rest ;can you tell me when there is sufficient "safety net " ? Or will the need continue to grow until everyone's pocket is picked empty . One in Seven Americans are on that food stamp program you want to expand. When is enough enough ? Rome did not survive 'bread and circuses '.Why do you think we will ?

[speechlesstx]

You can make the argument that most plans while having good intentions, have real life consequences and creates some problems that need further tweaking, and addressing. Congress has shown little ability to do either of these things in adjusting to the reality of real people.

Like taking into account a recession throwing tens of millions into utter chaos, and not expecting them to need a safety net. Or thinking someone lazy for using a safety net, when they are competing with many others to be secure with study income.

Or changing a 20 year career and life for minimum wage in less than a year. You cannot ignore the storm and expect everybody to be just fine in its aftermath. You also have to consider that for every victim of the recession, their are KIDS involved and not to err in their behalf when enacting, or enforcing any law is unacceptable.

My objection to the term nanny state is you only apply it to government, and ignore the corporate nanny state that has grown, and plays a bigger role in peoples lives, and made so many dependent on it, more so than any government rescue can endure.

Here's the thing Tal, I don't ignore your corporate complaints - I'm just not obsessed by them and know your side is just as deep in the corporate muck as anyone.

As for the kids, you guys will either kill 'em or if they survive the womb, take control from their parents anyway because they don't belong to them so good luck with that, the government is so adept at running things.

Anyway, as tom said SCOTUS left the door open for changes, but it is time to stop living in the past on race relations... something a good liberal SHOULD say.